Loading...
2010.06.23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 2010 INDEX Sign Variance No. 27-2010 Trung Nguyen for Royal Nails 1. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-18 Area Variance No. 9-2010 Steven L. and Christine M. Johnson 1. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-23 Area Variance No. 25-2010 William Crowell 12. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-59 Area Variance No. 26-2010 Inwald Enterprises (Robin Inwald) 23. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JOAN JENKIN BRIAN CLEMENTS RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI rd MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’m going to call the June 23 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our procedures, once again, for anybody that perhaps is new here. As we handle each application I’ll call the application by name and number. The secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes and Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the applicant, and then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing is intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issue at hand, and it functions to help the Board members make a wise decision. It does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. We will allow speakers to speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if after listening to the other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present, and, Board members, I’d suggest that because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking. Rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read in any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members then will discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left open depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 27-2010 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED TRUNG NGUYEN FOR ROYAL NAILS OWNER(S): RAYMOND HIPPELE ZONING: CI LOCATION: 959 STATE ROUTE 9 – MOUNT ROYAL PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES 5.5 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE TO EXISTING 113 SQUARE FOOT FREESTANDING SIGN AT MOUNT ROYAL PLAZA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM FREESTANDING SIGN SIZE AND FRONTLINE SETBACKS. CROSS REF.: BP 2010-224 SIGN; SIGN VARIANCE NO. 56-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 9, 2010 LOT SIZE: 5.13 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-18 SECTION: CHAPTER 140 MR. UNDERWOOD-We did receive a letter. The last item this evening was Trung Nguyen for Royal Nails, and that was up at the Mount Royal Plaza. “We are writing to withdraw our permission to proceed on the Sign Variance No. 27-2010, Trung Nguyen for Royal Nails. At this time we are studying alternative plans to redesign our main road sign at the Mount Royal Plaza. We will be working with Craig Brown to come up with a uniform sign plan to satisfy all concerns. Thank you. Raymond Hippele, President” OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON OWNER(S): STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON ZONING: WR-2A LOCATION: 96 HALL ROAD – GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING +/- 1,198 SQ. FT. SUMMER HOME AND REBUILD TO A +/- 2,110 SQ. FT. YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE WITH A 576 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2007-275 SEPTIC ALT.; SP 14-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.29 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-23 SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-4-050; 179-13-010 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-We did hear this previously, and we did give them some advice as to what we might find acceptable, and I think what I’ll do is have you read in Staff Notes and then have them tell us what the changes are from what they initially proposed. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2010, Steven L. and Christine M. Johnson, Meeting Date: June 23, 2010 “Project Location: 96 Hall Road – Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing +/- 1198 sq. ft. summer home and build a +/- 1,852 sq. ft. year round residence with a 576 +/- sq. ft. detached garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 11 feet 8 inches of shoreline relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement and 13 feet 3 inches of sideline setback relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the proposed single family dwelling as per §179-3-040 of town code. Further, the applciant requests relief of 9 feet 5 inches of side setback relief for the proposed detached garage. Finally, the applicant requests relief from road frontage requirements as per §179-3- 040 of town code. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as most structures in the neighborhood are non- conforming in nature. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Concerning the dwelling, alternatives to multiple area variances appear to be limited due to the constraints of the lot. Concerning the detached garage, it appears that the applicant could move the structure to the north 9 feet 5 inches in order to avoid an area variance for south sideline setback relief. Concerning road frontage relief, the applicant could combine the two parcels in order to avoid an area variance for this requirement. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 11 feet 8 inches or 23.5% shoreline relief for the proposed Single Family Dwelling may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 13 feet 3 inches or 66% of south side setback relief for the Single Family Dwelling may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 9 feet 5 inches or 48% relief from the 20 foot south sideline setback requirement for the detached garage may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 150 feet or 100% relief from the 150 foot road frontage requirement may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to moderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as the project proximity to the shoreline and the existing slopes may result in environmental degradation. However, stormwater and erosion and sedimentation controls have been designed and submitted that may mitigate any potential environmental concerns. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 14-10 SFD Pending BP 07-275 Septic Alteration Staff comments: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) This application was tabled on March 17, 2010 with conditions (see attached resolution). This application was again tabled at the request of the applicant at the May 19, 2010 meeting. The applicant has moved the proposed single family dwelling 14 additional feet from the shoreline than what was originally proposed. Further, the applicant has moved the proposed dwelling an additional 2 foot 7 inches from the south sideline than what was previously proposed. Finally, the applicant reduced the size of the single family dwelling from 2,110 square feet to 1,852 square feet and moved the proposed attached shed to the rear of the structure. Staff has brought up the potential to move the detached garage to the north in order to avoid an area variance for sideline relief with the applicant. The applicant has stated that vehicular maneuverability would be difficult if the garage is placed further to the north Planning Board recommendation previously attached. SEQR Status: Type II – No further review required.” MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, did the Planning Board see this again with the changes? MR. OBORNE-Yes, they’ll be back for Site Plan Review, pending the outcome of the Area Variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Sure. Okay. MR. WILKINSON-For the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson with Paragon Civil Engineering, representing Christine and Steve Johnson who are, Mr. Johnson is in the audience tonight. We are here, as was read in and as was discussed back in March, to seek an Area Variance for the side and lake setbacks on the home and the side setback for the garage. Again, I personally did not appear back in March. I have pulled the minutes and read them. I understand the Board’s concerns, specifically which is how we came up with the current layout. To give you a little further background on the lot itself, you can see the stone masonry retaining wall to the north side of the existing house. Those walls were created, my estimation is prior to the turn of the century. They are cobble rock walls that were built originally when the original camp was built. This camp exceeds 100 years in age, and those walls have not only some structural and important value to the homeowner, if we were to slide the house in that direction, we would have to replace those walls, move them, do whatever we need to do, but they also have some historic value to the property on the creation of this lot, the creation of the camps. The two camps that were here, the one to the north, on that property, and the one on this property, were both created approximately the same time and were two of the first camps around Glen Lake. So that’s one of the reasons why we wanted to leave that wall intact, and the proposal before you, the house is shown to provide approximately five to six feet between the house and the wall and those concrete steps. So that there would be room to walk around, do a little bit of grading, make sure the drainage is carried generally toward the front low area, towards the lake. I’ve created a, it’s not an infiltration basin per se. However, it is an area that traps the water and holds it, so that there is a place on site to trap any sediments, any flowing debris or anything are trapped on the site prior to flowing into the lake. So with that in mind, that addresses the house, I believe, and again, we pushed it off the sideline somewhat, but to try to keep a house of any significant size, to get the three bedrooms that are desired, or two bedrooms that are desired at this time, and maintain the flow within that house, it’s difficult to get closer to that wall that I want to help maintain and hold for that historic value, and for also the cost of trying to replace that. So I’ve done that with this proposal. By moving it off the sideline approximately two feet, I alleviated some of the issues of grading at the rear where that existing attached shed is. I’ve slid that attached shed around to the back to create a utility room off the back of the house, again, trying to alleviate as much as I can coming off of that property. As far as the garage goes, the reason I placed it where it is, if you look at the plan, there’s an old stone masonry foundation, just behind the garage to the south. That is actually an old retaining wall as well, and it actually continues through the woods, right near the gazebo. There’s pieces of it that still exist. I was trying to keep the garage above that area, and be able to utilize the existing gravel area and try to minimize impacts to increasing stormwater, increasing impervious area, and trying to take care of the site and make sure it’s functional as well. That’s how I placed it there. I did recently, as a matter of fact today, I did not submit it. I looked at can we meet the side setbacks on this garage. It would be difficult maneuverability, but it’s possible. So I looked at that, I have not shown the applicant that, but I wanted to make sure that you knew, I would prefer this layout or something close to it so that I can keep the maneuverability coming into the site, being able to turn around and back in or pull into the garage and then back out and pull out 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) of the site. As you may or may not be aware, I’m not sure how many Board members have seen the site, but the gravel access coming in is relatively small. It’s about 18 feet or so in width, which is adequate to get two cars through, but that’s about it, and with that, we have to keep it in that same location. So we’re kind of stuck with that, and to utilize that, plus allow the site to function at the garage and do the house, that’s why we’re requesting the side setback on the garage. With that I’d like to turn it over to the Board for any questions, comments and discussion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys have any questions at this time? MR. KUHL-If the stone walls are of so much importance, why didn’t you just move the house behind it, beyond the stone walls? MR. WILKINSON-Because there’s an embankment of approximately nine feet that goes up. MR. KUHL-That’s not a big deal, it’s only dirt. MR. WILKINSON-True, it is only dirt. However, it does add a significant cost to take that much dirt out for that nine feet. MRS. JENKIN-Well, that dirt wall, that was actually, when you put in the septic system, when the septic system was put in, then wasn’t that excavated for that? MR. WILKINSON-There was some disturbance to it where the pipe went up the hill, and the cribbing that’s shown here is a timber retaining wall, that cribbing was added when the tank went in. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, can you put the picture of the waterfront back up? With the house down on the lakeside. MR. KUHL-Clark, have you done any test borings where you’re suggesting the house should go, to see whether or not you can actually put footings in there? MR. WILKINSON-I have not personally, no. MR. KUHL-So you really don’t even know whether or not you can go down with the footings you need to support the dwelling. MR. WILKINSON-Based on knowing this area, having experience around the lake, my estimate is that, and I show it on here, I would raise the finished floor about a foot and a half to two foot to make sure I can get a footing in above the water grade. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I’m going to guess you’ve probably only got about a foot above water level there, at the current level of the foundation? MR. WILKINSON-It’s about a foot, foot and a half max. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. GARRAND-Have test pits been done? MR. WILKINSON-No, not down there on the lake. Up top, yes. MR. URRICO-It just seems like you’re asking for an awful lot of relief, and one of the suggestions, you seem to be willing to move on, I think that’s something we, at least I would like to see. MR. WILKINSON-What’s that? MR. URRICO-The garage, the side line, at least. MR. WILKINSON-And that seems very fair, and like I said, I originally laid it out knowing that, what the setbacks were and trying to get it to work. I’ve gone back and looked at that, and it’s tight, but I can probably get it to work. I need to run it by the applicant to make sure they’re satisfied with it, and as far as the borings down below, I haven’t actually, I’ve dug a hole, but I haven’t done an official boring and logged it. That’s why I know the water’s about a foot to a foot and a half below the existing ground. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, you do have mature trees there that probably would be dying if they were in the water themselves. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-One of the reasons I suggested moving it back the last time was I was thinking you could hog out from the bank there and use that as fill, just to get yourself up above grade, and I was thinking more in a sense of, you know, like you’re going to go get a mortgage to do this. The bank’s probably going to go, boy, that’s awful close to the water. When you’re thinking you’re going to make the big quantum leap to a year round residence, it would seem it would be in your interest to give yourself that little bit of extra margin instead of just saying, well, it hasn’t flooded yet, but it might, you know. MR. WILKINSON-There is good history on Glen Lake as far as elevations go, and I’m confident that the elevation I put it at, I could sign a flood certification, since I do them anyway, I could sign one. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Do you guys have any other questions at this time? MRS. JENKIN-There’s one question. You said you have about five feet between the retaining wall and the side of the house? MR. WILKINSON-Correct, five to six, five and a half, something like that, back by the steps. MRS. JENKIN-And the slope of the roof does go towards that five feet, correct? MR. WILKINSON-No, it goes a little bit toward that side. It goes a lot towards the back. I submitted elevations, too, I believe, and that’s one of the reasons why I wanted to have at least five feet, to make sure that I could get a swale and direct drainage through there, and also by raising that elevation of that finished floor, it gives me a little bit more grade to work with to get it out of that back area. MRS. JENKIN-But, being so close to the lake, do you think, you want drainage, but is that going to drain right into the lake when the melt comes, because the ground will be frozen, so there’s nowhere for it to go? MR. WILKINSON-No. True, but I’ve created a depression in front of the existing house, with the grades, so that it traps as much water as possible. Also, in the swales along the sides of the house, being grass, if it’s a frozen ground condition, the only time that there’ll be a lot of runoff is if you get that Spring rain and it’s occasional that we get that for sure, but that would definitely go, flow down and be trapped in that front lawn area before going into the lake, and if it’s all grass and everything else, then there shouldn’t be siltation. There shouldn’t be, you know, any contaminants of that nature, just whatever falls on the roof which is the same as falls on the ground, and up above, from the garage, we have some infiltration devices that go below frost elevation. So they would still be able to function during the winter months. MR. KUHL-But in actuality you could move the whole dwelling back behind your stone wall, and put your garage up in the back and not disturb anything. MR. WILKINSON-Well, you’d be disturbing that entire embankment, which is going to create a lot more disturbance and a lot more silt and everything else than what we’re proposing. In addition, the 30 inch diameter cover that’s in that timber retaining wall, that’s where the septic tank is with the pump unit that comes out of the house. If the house gets any closer to that, I would have to move that as well, and that’s one of the issues that creates more clearing back of that embankment, than just for the house, is we have to also accommodate that. I can’t move that to the north side of the house because I have an existing well on that side that I wouldn’t meet the separation to it. I can’t move it to the south side because the adjoining owners have wells that I would be closer than the requirements. So there’s really limitations on where I can put that. MRS. JENKIN-You could move it back. MR. KUHL-You could move it east. MR. WILKINSON-Again, you’d have to dig out a lot more of the embankment to do that, and I’m, my opinion is professionally that if you’re digging out that much embankment, not that you can’t do it. It’s just you’re creating a lot more disturbance to this site than what we’re proposing. We’re trying to minimize disturbance, minimize disruption to the site, and try to keep the integrity of the site as it is. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) MR. KUHL-But as I remember visiting the site, there’s really no big trees down in behind that that you’d disturb either by moving it back, are there? MR. WILKINSON-There’s one tree on the south corner on the top of that embankment, and there’s a big oak, about a 24 inch oak, right next to the gazebo just behind it to the south. Other than that, there’s not large trees, no. There’s some brush and flowering bushes and things like that. MRS. JENKIN-The thing is, it’s such a major change anyway, and it’s a major expansion and you’re building a new house, and it would be really a very good thing if you did the job properly and made sure that everything was in the proper side setbacks and everything, at the time you’re building, rather than just trying to, the thing is the house, as it is now, you don’t want to maintain what it is now because. MR. WILKINSON-That is always an option, to leave it as is. MRS. JENKIN-No, but they want a year round home there. So to do it properly. MR. WILKINSON-Correct, that’s how this project came about is because they wanted to take that existing house and make it a four season house where it is. The fact of the matter is is that there isn’t a good enough foundation under it to warrant being able to make it four season, and add the addition on the back portion. Again, the addition portion of that will be the 50 feet from the lake as required. Just the second story. The first story is the only portion which exists now, only 25 feet from the lake. We’re proposing to push that back to almost 40 feet, 39.4 feet from the lake, and then the front part of that house will only be first story, and then once it gets 50 feet from the lake, then the second story comes up. So the second story would be in conformance, but the first story would not, but it would be more in conformance than it is now, if you did nothing. MR. URRICO-Have you done any comparisons to the properties around you, in terms of how far they are set back from the lake? Because that was one of the directions that we gave. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. The property to the south owned by Mr. Kruger, I believe his house is approximately 51, you can correct me if I’m wrong, Don, a little over 50 feet from the lake. Correct? Yes, the new house is 50 feet. The existing one is 65. The lands to the north, the Della Camera’s, their house is between 25 and 30 feet from the lake. MRS. JENKIN-Is that a new house? MR. WILKINSON-No. It’s the same existing camp as what this was. They have done improvements to it in the past ten years, I believe, seven years maybe, but it’s the same camp that was there when this camp was built. MRS. JENKIN-This is an opportunity to make it right. MR. WILKINSON-And under the conditions of the site, we’re attempting to make it as right as we can. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anymore questions right now? Do you guys want me to open up the public hearing? MR. URRICO-I’ll wait. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I will open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter raise your hand, please. Do you want to come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MIKE BARRY MR. BARRY-My name’s Mike Barry. I have a house at 5 Glen Hall Drive. It’s a year round house. One of the thing I’m concerned about is, during the construction phase, if it is approved, we already have a lot of silt in that area, I mean, the lake is not the best swimming area as it is. I’m concerned about how much runoff is going to be dumped into the lake during construction if they, in fact, do get approved to do construction. The second thing I’m, you know, our house we bought had to be pushed back. It’s, you know, it sits back. It’s got retaining walls. They did it right, and I think it’s only fair that they also do it right, and then, to be quite honest, the guy’s not a very good neighbor, and, you know, I think that’s a very big bearing on things is if you are part 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) of a community, you should act like you’re part of a community, and not a sole person out there doing whatever you feel like, and one of the issues we have in that area is the Hall Road Extension and the fact that he allegedly thinks it’s his private parking lot and no one else can use it, no one else can park there temporarily. One of the reasons people have houses at the lake is they entertain, have a good time during the summer. Mine’s a year round house . I go up there year round. We have people there all the time, and yet, you know, every day we go by, there’s no parking signs, to the extent where it’s all the way up to the mailbox, where the mailboxes are, which is, you know, I find it kind of hard to believe that he owns that piece of it. It’s a right of way, and one of the concerns I have is if it’s a public right of way, it’s one thing. If it’s a private right of way, it’s another thing, and if it is a private right of way, and my understanding is Queensbury’s been plowing it, I’ve got concerns over Queensbury using taxes to plow a private right of way. So that’s one of the concerns I have. Him or his wife leave notes on people’s cars when they’re parked, you know, for a short duration, maybe an hour, two hours. The guy’s just not a good neighbor. I mean, that’s the bottom line. I know that’s not, you know, a whole lot of bearing on whether or not he gets the variance or not, but it is, within the local community there it is an issue, and like I said, you know, if you’re going to do it right, do it right. He’s asking for a whole lot of variances, and there is ways to do it right without granting all those variances, and so I urge you to make them do it right and maintain the integrity of the area there, and that’s all I’ve got to say. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do you want to come up? CHRIS DELLA CAMERA MR. DELLA CAMERA-Could you go back to the right of way that leads into. MR. OBORNE-The picture? The one with the fence. MR. DELLA CAMERA-Yes. Okay. Right. Now, excuse me. The picture was taken in the snow. There’s a line of flowers that go just about four feet out from the fence. Even if they weren’t there, because it drops off, it slopes off, there is absolutely no way you could fit two cars side by side. As a matter of fact, the Johnson’s ran over our flowers on three separate occasions, and they have a Cooper, and they can’t fit it down there. MR. URRICO-Sir, you never identified yourself for the record. MR. DELLA CAMERA-I’m sorry, Chris Della Camera. I live to the north, and I had to agree with the gentleman prior to me. They are not nice neighbors. I tried everything I could to help him out. He actually has a fence that’s installed on my property. I approached him. I said, Steve, you don’t have to move it. I don’t want to see you move it, but, just give me a letter stating that, in the event I sell the house, you state that that fence is on my property, so the people buying the house buy what they see, what they’re supposed to get. Other than that, I would like to see it built in conformance, side setbacks, lake setback, because I think if everyone else on the lake has to do the same, then they should. I had originally, when I bought my camp, wanted to put a full house, right where it was. I inquired. I was told I can’t do it without a bunch of variances. We decided against it. Whoever had the house before me took very good care of it. There’s a full foundation under it. We have sided, put new siding in, put new thermal pane windows. So we’re very happy with it, but had I wanted to move it back, I would have had to keep 50 feet back, 20 feet from the side, and I enjoy being up by the lake. So, having said that, I think that they should conform, and that’s all I have to say. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. MR. DELLA CAMERA-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else wishing to speak? Do you want to come up? DON KRUGER MR. KRUGER-Good evening. I’m Don Kruger, and I’m the Johnson’s southerly neighbor. Did they read Danny Barber’s letter in? MR. UNDERWOOD-Not yet. He will at the end. Yes. MR. KRUGER-All right. I’m looking at the print, I’m looking at the photos, and I’ve looked at those stone walls, and I want to be a good neighbor to Mr. Johnson, but I’d like Mr. Johnson to be a good neighbor to me. Those walls are only rock, and believe me, on Glen Lake we’ve got plenty of, we call it Glen Lake topsoil. That’s rocks. To build his new house six foot nine inches 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) away from my property, a 28 foot house on a 75 foot lot, I have to tell you is a stretch of imagination. I am vehemently opposed to the six foot nine inches or whatever. I think that it could fit 20 foot side yard, and I had to build my new house 50 foot back. As I sat there the other night, I told my wife, I said, you know, I’m glad they made me build it back, because I would have blocked my next door neighbor, which is Ogdens, and at this point, if I did block them, I would feel like a schmuck. We all live there. For whatever reason they made me go back 50 feet, it’s doable on this property, and there’s no reason it can’t be done. As far as digging into that bank, he could use that fill. Clark talked about bringing the grade up a foot and a half. I think he also mentioned a foot and a half down to the water, but that’s their problem. That’s not mine. If you’re going to bring it up a foot and a half, a handy place to get that fill would be from right back in the bank, which is probably where the fill came from to fill that property in to begin with. It is more than doable. It’s nothing major, and I just want to say that I want them to build a new house. I want them to be able to enjoy it, but I want to be able to enjoy my property, too, and if he builds 37 feet back from the waterline, it’s going to block my view, and as far as the second story goes, it’s a cathedral ceiling living room. His second story might be 50 feet back, but I’m going to be looking at two stories, 37 feet from the lake, and I don’t think that that’s right. I don’t think it’s fair to me, or my wife, or whoever might buy my property or inherit it. Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do we have any correspondence? MR. URRICO-Yes, we do. This one is from Daniel R. Barber, and it’s regarding Steven L. and Christine M. Johnson. It’s dated 6/23/2010. It says, “As stated previously in a letter to the Board, I still support the improvements at the Johnson site. New construction is just good for the Lake if done properly. However: 1) I did expect the applicant to meet critical offsets, etc. especially the important 50’ from Glen Lake. After reviewing the site plan and survey, it is clear that if proper planning was done by the Johnsons on initially positioning the holding tank and leach field, there would be no need for this variance and others, as on the garage, since they own more than enough property to place them in proper respect to the lake and their neighbors. There is absolutely no reason for not removing and replacing the holding tank to meet the 50’ offset. 2) Storm Water Management This is a very important issue around critical areas, especially to help prevent pollutants (i.e.) fertilizer etc. from washing into the lake. This is totally neglected in regards to the Johnson dwelling. The four 3 acre lot we are urgently building on, adjacent to the Johnsons, must meet a 25 year Storm Water Management program and yet do not even touch the lake. Stormwater Water Management was an important issue on houses we built on the lake 20 years ago and had to design to deal with it. Once again, the Johnsons have more than enough property to use gutters and a holding tank(s) to pump this matter up to a leaching area beyond the leach field. My business, Sherwood Acres Construction Corp., has done some of the major construction around the lake over the last 40 years. This leads me to be concerned about the digging of trenches needed for the footings and frost walls at that grade to the lake. Contrary to the engineer’s best hope, it is not possible not to hit substantial ground water and what then? Daniel R. Barber President Sherwood Acres Construction Corp.” That’s the only letter. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s it. Okay. Do you want to come back up? I will give you a chance to rebut or argue your points again. MR. WILKINSON-Sure. I hear what the neighbors are saying, and I do have a sense of what they’re feeling and what they might be going through. Those rock walls, they may be rock walls, but they’re put together with concrete. To replace them in kind, to move that back, to do whatever, is a substantial cost to build a retaining wall. Again, the probability, or I would say probability, there is a possibility that the do nothing approach falls through in this case, and in which case the house remains 25 feet from the lake and they continue to do it, and, you know, and upkeep it and do what they can to keep it going and that’s where we are. They did, however, want to try to move into this house on a full time basis for winter conditions as well, and they, maybe they’ll abandon that plan. I don’t know, but that is a possibility, and I just want to make sure the Board was aware that is an option. It’s always an option. Mr. Della Camera talked about the fence. The survey done by Chuck Nacy on this property not only shows there’s a slight encroachment onto his property with our fence, but his fence onto this property as well. It’s one of those things, I agree, that neighbors should agree that the fence is where it is, and, you know, it’s okay to have it, but it may not be exactly on the property line. I agree with him it’s a good thing to just sign off on so that any future buyers or any future owners would know that, but again, a survey of the property would show that anyway. As far as Mr. Kruger saying that having the house only 39 feet back from the lake would block his views, I’m wondering what he would be viewing, looking to the north, because all of the lake it actually to the west of us, of that lot, and his actual view of the lake is not obstructed, nor would it ever be obstructed, even where it is now. As far as stormwater management goes, Mr. Barber in his letter addressed some proper planning of the house and things like that. At the time the septic system was done, it was a necessary thing that had to be done. There was a, I’m not sure whether it was failing or 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) whether it was undersized or what was the case. I didn’t design it. Another engineer did. However, at that time, there was no thought in moving here full time and making this a four season home, and since that septic system has gone in, those plans have changed and who knows they may change again. As far as the stormwater management approach by Mr. Barber, a stormwater management plan has been done for this project and the plan and reports have been reviewed and approved by VISION Engineering who was the Town designated engineer on this project, and as far as groundwater goes, one of the conditions that I show on my drawings that he may be referring to is that excavation should be kept dry at all times. That is an indication from me that if you hit high groundwater, guess what, you have to adjust your finished grade. You may have to raise your house up a little. We’re intending not to put footings in wet soil. They wouldn’t be good. You can’t guarantee how much the soil can hold. I would want to make sure that that footing was in at a grade that would be adequate and be able to support the structure, and again, it may mean that once we dig those holes, that structure raises another foot and we go about business. All in all, I believe that the project, as proposed, does try to utilize the site as best as possible without incurring a tremendous amount of additional construction costs, for instance removing the slope back, however far. There would be a lot of materials, some of which you could use on site, but most of it you would probably have to truck off site. Even during construction you would probably have to truck it off site, store it temporarily, and then bring it back once the house is taken down. So there’s additional costs with that. Tremendous additional costs with trying to rebuild those walls and those rock walls and trying to put them back in a similar nature to what they are now, and again, by doing that you’re also destroying some of the history of the parcel that was created way back when when these walls were constructed. So with that in mind, I’m still, and by the way, I have spoken to the owner. We can, or he is accepting my revised plan to move the garage, to try to meet the setback. I have done that in a sketch that I just showed him and got his approval for. So we will be taking that off the table for this Zoning Board, and we will just utilize that during Site Plan approval. So, with that in mind, I’d like to put it back to the Board for any additional comments. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to ask any additional comments? MR. KUHL-Yes, I just have one, Mr. Wilkinson. Forty foot road frontage, he owns all that property on Hall Road Extension. Why didn’t they just cut the driveway straight out to Hall Road? MR. WILKINSON-Improper planning. The existing septic system is right in the way, that’s part of it, and the other part of it is they are two separate parcels that he obtained at two separate times, and they’re just separate tax parcels that are taxed on. He could combine them, but for tax reasons you want to leave them separately, because, if you combine the back parcel with the front parcel, it now becomes a larger lakefront parcel and it would be taxed significantly more. MR. KUHL-No, they only tax you on the front footage, on the lake front footage. MR. WILKINSON-And the acreage is factored in there somehow. MR. KUHL-Only the front footage. Also, I know you talk about the cost of taking the soil away and bringing it back. He’s got all that land back there. Wouldn’t that be the place to put that soil? MR. WILKINSON-You’d have to clear a bunch of trees, possible, but yes, you would. MR. KUHL-To me, I did do a site visit. It didn’t look that, maybe I’m wrong, because I’m not a truck driver, but it looked to me like you could store that, if that land, that soil. MR. WILKINSON-You certainly could, but again, by doing that you’re now disturbing more acreage. You now have to make sure that the area you’re disturbing and storing the soil is protected from sediment control and getting to the lake, and again, you know, I’d have to show all that on my plan. Not a problem, I can certainly do that, but again, trying to excavate that slope, to me, that close to the lake, I personally don’t recommend it. If it’s what the Board wants, I can understand it, but as an engineer, I believe that you’re making more disturbance closer to the lake than you need to, but that’s just my opinion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? Okay. Then I guess we’ll poll the Board and see what the feelings of the Board are at this time. I’ll start with you, Joyce. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, I think that the benefit could be achieved by other means, which might not be feasible to the applicant, but certainly would make a lot of sense. I think the request is really substantial, and it’s certainly self-created, and I think with the size of the property, the house could be centered so that there was no side setback relief, and I think 6.9 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) feet from the, what is it the west side, or east side is too much. So I would not be in favor of the variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I think I’d like to listen to the other comments from the Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I feel, as Joyce just said, you have to look at the balancing test here. That’s what we’re required to do and consider, and I think that it is definitely feasible to do something else. I think, using the soil from the back, if you were to dig it out farther and move everything back, it would be actually positive to lift the building up a little bit and make it higher, probably for high water relief, but also it would just help the whole property to have it up not just sitting so close to the water, but down right at water grade the way it is now, I think that would be a positive. I feel the request substantial. It is too close to the neighbor’s property, the 6.9 feet. I think the rock wall, as was mentioned before, all rock walls are definitely easily buildable in this area, there’s many, many rocks, and it could be dismantled and moved. You have a large enough piece of property to actually do a nice job with, if the owners want to do a year round home, and I think it would have adverse physical and environmental effects to put it where you are suggesting. So I would be against this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I’ve got a little bit of a different approach on this. We started out with something that seemed like it was right up on the lake. It seemed roughly only 25 feet from the lake, and now we’re talking something that’s roughly 39 feet from the lake. Taking the garage out of consideration, I think that significantly reduces the amount of the variance that they’re looking for here. Considering all that, I don’t think it’s significant, and I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Well, I just want to remind everybody that both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board have voiced concerns about the view shed being blocked and the proximity to the lake, and while they have been addressed, I don’t think they’ve been addressed enough. We’ve made a good pass here. I think there’s still some work to be done. The Code requires us, we’re charged with approving minimum relief, and I don’t think we’ve reached that stage yet. I think we still have some work to be done. We’re still asking for significant relief on the side setback, and still some significant relief on the shoreline. So I think we need to look at moving the house back. I think it can be done. I understand history, but it’s history that you folks created. The difficulty was created by you folks wanting to move that by putting up another house or building on that house, building on that lot. So if you have to move it back, this is something that is going to be required, at least from my standpoint, and I think we’re going to have to look at making that change. I understand on the table is the garage. We’ve already addressed that, that’s something you’re going to be able to do. So that’s where I stand on it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, my feeling is, once you remove the house, it’s like a new build, and being as how you don’t have a lot of foliage on the property that you’d have to move or cut down, the trees I mean, I think you could move the dwelling back and maintain your two stone walls, and have a house and the stone walls. Perhaps the garage would have to be modified somewhere, you know, within the structure, but I think you could get the 20 foot side setbacks in the back and the front all in one dwelling, without, okay, without disturbing your stone walls, without taking down your big trees. So I look at it as a new build, and as a new build, I think you should maintain the setbacks, the lake, the side setbacks, and the rear, and I still don’t, I don’t understand why you can’t put a driveway out to Hall Road Extension, you know, and eliminate that 40 foot, you know, because he’s got the property there on Hall Road, and you’d probably be better access, I mean, unless that pool was there where the trucks would damage it, but if there’s room from the pool to the side of the property, you’d want that to get your trucks in and out to build it, too. MR. WILKINSON-It’s a gazebo. MR. KUHL-No, no, I’m talking about from Hall Road Extension into his property when you build it. MR. WILKINSON-It’s a septic system. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) MR. KUHL-Yes, but you can’t go from the septic to the side of the property, because you have, according to this, there’s a drawing, and there is space. MR. WILKINSON-According to the septic drawings that I looked up and that are on file in the Town, it’s 10 feet. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-And it’s tight, you can’t really do it. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. Thanks. I think that it’s unfortunate that we didn’t have some pre- planning here with the septic system, and I know it’s not necessarily a perfect plan. However, I do applaud that you’ve made some modifications, particularly from the setback from the lake, and that you’ve made an effort, by moving the garage, as you’ve said tonight. You haven’t got a lot of support from your neighbors, but I think it’s going to be a financial burden on the applicant, and I think they’ve done as much as they can do without putting in a lot more money into this, and as I say, it’s not necessarily a perfect plan, but I think that they have done some good modifications, so I think I’m going to agree with Rich and say I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Last time you came in before me, I think it was my suggestion to move this back as far as was practicable, and I think I would agree with Brian and Rich that it’s been done. However, I think that the major sticking point still is the side setbacks, and that seems to be predicated purely on that rock wall that’s over there, and I think that, looking at the makeup of the Board, with the seven members, you’re not going to have enough votes here to garner approvals here for that. I would applaud you for moving the garage and taking that off the table, but as a practical solution here, I think when you’re close to 40 feet back from the lake, that’s plenty of distance from the lake. There’s plenty of places that are closer. I mean, we could ask for complete parity with the neighborhood, at a 50 foot level, and I don’t think that would be unreasonable to ask for either, and it seems to me that everybody in the neighborhood would prefer that, at the same time, but, to me, it would be logical that you could center this better on the property as it’s been suggested here, and I think that, even though you’ve moved it over a couple of feet, it’s not enough yet to satisfy the guy who’s going to be most affected by it, but I would agree with the other viewpoint, you know, when you’re 40 feet back, I mean, that’s pretty far back, and not everybody’s looking out the side of their house, and, Don, you are 50 feet back, so I mean, you are going to see it if it’s 10 feet further up in front of you here. So I think you need to consider what you’re going to do there, and in a practical sense, if you’re going to have to bring in fill on site to raise this above grade, above the level of the water and the lake there, I can’t imagine that you’re not going to run into issues when you go down four feet there, with possible water, especially if you do it and it’s a wet summer this year, as it’s now heading towards. So I’m going to guess that you can probably squeeze this back even further, maybe move that septic and slide this thing over away from the property line, you know, bring it more into compliance. I mean, I don’t want to have to make you do it, but it seems to be, the majority of the Board feels that that’s what they would like to see you achieve. So you’re going to have to do that. So I think what we’ll do at this point is we’ll table you until you come back with something else in a more palatable form, but knowing the makeup and the wishes of the Board, it’s going to have to be basically compliant, you know, in all respects, and I think that’s achievable. It’s not unachievable. You’re going to need fill in there. If you hog the bank out and take 10 or 15 feet back from that bank there, slide it back a little bit more. That’s not going to be that great of a burden to do that. You’re going to need the fill anyway. So I think what we’ll do is table this until such time as you come back with another rendition, and I don’t know how long you’re going to need to figure that out. Do you want 60 days? 30 days? MR. WILKINSON-Thirty days. th MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So submittals will have to be by the 15 of July. thth MR. OBORNE-So you want to table to either the 18 or 25 of August. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we’ll put you on for the first meeting in August. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 STEVEN L & CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th 96 Hall Road – Glen Lake. Submittals will have to be by the 15 of July, tabled to the first meeting in August. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) rd Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Sorry about that. MR. WILKINSON-Thank you for your time. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II WILLIAM CROWELL AGENT(S) BRIAN HOGAN OWNER(S): WILLIAM CROWELL ZONING WR LOCATION 20 HOLLY LANE, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING 1.5 STORY YEAR ROUND HOME TO INCLUDE EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING KITCHEN, OFFICE/DEN, SECOND STORY, AND THE ADDITION OF A WRAP AROUND PORCH ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDE OF HOME. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING WOODED DECK WITH A PERMEABLE PATIO AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO RETAINING WALLS ADJACENT TO THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: BP 2002-366 SEPTIC ALT. S.P. 12-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 9, 2010 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-59 SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-13-010 BRIAN HOGAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2010, William Crowell, Meeting Date: June 23, 2010 “Project Location: 20 Holly Lane, Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes expansion of an existing 1.5 story year round home to include expansion to the existing kitchen, office/den, second story, and the addition of a wraparound porch on the north and west side of home. Further, applicant proposes to replace existing wooded deck with a permeable patio and the construction of two retaining walls adjacent to the shoreline. Relief requested from minimum Floor Area Ratio and shoreline setback requirements. Further, relief requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: Applicant seeks 353 square feet of additional FAR relief from the maximum allowable FAR of 3,258 square feet for this parcel as per §179-3-040. Total proposed FAR to be 3,611 square feet. Further, the applicant requests 28 linear feet of shoreline setback relief from the 20 foot shoreline setback requirement per §179-3-040 for the proposed patio. Finally, relief requested for expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA for that portion of the house to be expanded within the 50 foot shoreline setback relief as per §179-13-010(A). The expansion of the structure begins 15 feet into the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as stormwater runoff is proposed on the parcel where none currently exists. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Alternatives to the multiple area variances appear to be limited due to the constraints of the lot. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requests for an additional 353 square feet for a total FAR of 24.4% or 2.4% increase from the required 22% FAR may be considered 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) minor relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 28 feet or 56% relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Finally, the ZBA must approve the expansion of a non-conforming structure as per §179-13-010. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.Minor tomoderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as any disturbance along the shoreline may be considered detrimental. However, a site plan with E&S and stormwater controls designed professionally may mitigate any potential concerns. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): S.P. 12-2010 Pending Staff Comment: The applicant has obtained a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the variances associated with this project. Please see attached. SEQR Status: Type II – No further review required” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board made the motion, 25-2010, and passed it according to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed seven zero. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Hogan. MR. HOGAN-Good evening. I’m Brian Hogan. I’m actually Bill’s neighbor. I have some experience in this. I’ve offered to help him out a little bit, and this is Bill. I guess what I’d kind of like to do is to give you a brief overview. You guys all have the sheets in front of you. On Sheet One, we have some photographs of the existing property. Bill’s house, as we’re showing here, is in Photo Two on the right there’s a deck, which we’re proposing to remove. That’s going to be lowered and replaced with a patio that’s going to act as a stormwater retention device, and there’s going to be a secondary wall that we’re going to put in front of that to mitigate the amount of height of that patio. We’re going to actually lower that. If you look at the height of that patio, that’s going to be about 18 inches lower than what the existing deck is, and then there’s going to be a very small retaining wall in front of that for plantings. What we’re planning on doing is to have the secondary wall come right across the front of that, and that’s going to act as a secondary stormwater control device. On the other side, moving down, that’s kind of a picture of the side of the house right there. What we want to do is to add a wraparound porch to kind of make the house look a little bit nicer. It’s a six foot wood porch, and it’s going to cover that existing bilco door area, and that’s basically going to be the extent of it on the outside. On the top side of it there you can just barely see where we’re going to add the, there’s two very small bedrooms upstairs right now. What we’re proposing is to increase the size of those bedrooms, make them a little more useable, and in addition, we’re going to add a bathroom up there. So that’s the extent of really what we’re going to do. On Sheet Two kind of shows some ideas of what we propose the building to look like when we’re completed with it, so you can see the two retaining walls in there on the deck and how we’ve lowered it and tried to make everything work with the landscape a little bit better. On Sheet Three, is the plot plan, kind of shows you why we’re asking for some of the variances that we are. It’s not really feasible to move the house back any further. There’s a stone wall immediately to the rear of the property and beyond that is the leach field for the septic system. So we really can’t move the house back any further. It’s an existing structure. We’re just proposing to extend it. Around the front you can kind of see the retaining walls a little bit. What we’re showing there is the patio, extends across the entire front of the building, and incorporated within that patio is a stormwater retention device. What we’re planning on using is permeable pavers. So the entire sheet flow of the water coming off the roof gets absorbed into that, into the patio, and effectively we’re treating, we estimate 100% of the water that would come off of this building is actually going to go into the stormwater retention and not go anywhere near the lake. Currently, if any of you have been to the property, you kind of know right now it slopes immediately down to the lake. You can actually see some erosion, 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) evidence of erosion underneath the existing patio or deck that’s in place right now, and we’re going to be eliminating all of that. In terms of the distance back from the building, the size of the patio is, I would say it’s a moderate sized patio. The reason, one of the reasons the size is of what it is is to make sure that we have enough infiltration in place to be able to treat all the stormwater. According to the stormwater plan, there’s a set of requirements associated with that, and that’s what we’re including to cover that issue. Where we could, we’ve actually lowered the patio even further. It’s actually shown in two sections there. There’s a section with an umbrella on it. That’s actually lower than the main patio. That’s actually at ground level. So basically we have a ground level section of the patio, and then we actually come up about a foot or so to go to the remainder of the patio which cuts across the front of the house. We’re planning on having plantings in place on Sheet Four, basically kind of shows what we’re planning on doing there. Immediately in front of the patio we’re having a full set of plantings in there, around the side of the house as well, and down towards the lake we’re proposing an additional set of plantings to act as somewhat of a buffer, and reduce the size of the lawn. In general, that’s about it. MR. KUHL-What are the workers doing there now? BILL CROWELL MR. CROWELL-The workers are there now because my dock was eradicated with the ice, moving ice. So that’s what the work is. I’ve got a permit from the Town of Queensbury to do the dock. MR. KUHL-I just saw them all. I was curious. MR. CROWELL-I was lucky they were there. Some days they don’t come. MR. KUHL-Brian, what are you doing the stairs out of? Are they going to be wood, or is it going to be stone stairs to the front door off the patio? MR. HOGAN-Off the patio? MR. KUHL-Yes, the stairs going to the main door, off the patio. MR. HOGAN-Okay. When you say the main door, you’re saying lakeside? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. HOGAN-Okay. The lakeside, right now those are planned on being probably wood. MR. CLEMENTS-Are you leaving all of the stonework and steps the way they are right now? MR. HOGAN-In the rear of the? MR. CLEMENTS-In the rear and coming down the side. MR. HOGAN-That’s correct. That’s going to stay the same. Actually part of, where the walkway actually kind of curves a little bit and goes into the deck, that’s going to get covered at that point. MR. CLEMENTS-And how about taking down any trees? MR. HOGAN-We’re not going to be taking down any trees. MR. CLEMENTS-And is the patio closer to the lake than the deck is now? MR. HOGAN-We don’t really approach any closer. It’s kind of weird the way you look at it. If you look on the plot plan and the survey. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, as I looked at that, I saw this one, this one right here shows 22.5 feet. Yours shows 20 feet 7 inches, but it’s going to a different point on the, on that wall. MR. HOGAN-I’m actually showing it to the interior of the wall, and they’re showing it to the exterior of the wall. That wall is about 18 inches across. So if you measure it that way, we’re actually. MR. CLEMENTS-That’s what I was wondering, as I saw that arrow there. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) MR. HOGAN-Yes, it’s just a difference in point where the measurements were taken. If you look at the stormwater plan, they come up with 21.5. So, it’s just really weird, because where it comes into, there’s a little crook in the wall right there, and depending on how you measure it, it goes one foot either way, but ostensibly we’re not really coming any closer to the lake. MR. CLEMENTS-You’re basically on the same footprint as the house is now. MR. HOGAN-Basically on the same footprint as the house. In terms of the relief on the variance, I asked for that extra foot because I didn’t want to be, get in any trouble when they actually constructed. MRS. JENKIN-So the front of, the existing front of the house now, you’re going to take the roof off, change it, and then the upper story, which is now existing, you’re just going to raise the back up to make more room? MR. HOGAN-Yes. Basically what we’re doing is just changing, the roof right now is almost flat, and it’s a tar roof, yes, so we’re just going to change it and put about a three or four and twelve pitch on it, and that way we’re going to be able to, you know, have it a little bit nicer on the inside. We’ll put some beam work and things. MRS. JENKIN-So the front of the house, the second story on the front of the house will be the same height as it is now? MR. HOGAN-The second story? MRS. JENKIN-At the front of the seconds story. MR. HOGAN-No, that’s going to be higher. Yes. Right now if you go into the bedrooms upstairs, there’s probably only about a three or four foot knee wall and then it kind of goes back and it’s, we’re actually going to raise that. That’s how we’re going to get those windows in there. If you look on the existing photo on Page One, you can just barely see it but those windows are, the windows that they have in there are tiny. They’re only about a foot and a half tall. MRS. JENKIN-Right. Okay. MR. HOGAN-Yes. So we’re going to make a bigger window so they can see out. MRS. JENKIN-So actually you’re taking the roof off and lifting the whole thing up? MR. HOGAN-Exactly. Yes, we’re trying to give it that older camp kind of look where they have that. MR. GARRAND-Are you going to be pouring a new foundation? So you’re removing foundation walls? MR. HOGAN-No. The only change that’s going to be made to the foundation wall is we’re planning on, the bilco door that’s shown in the picture, that actually ends up being underneath the porch. We were originally going to make that a hatch to get down into, but what we had actually proposed as an alternate, and I think we want to go with, is to move the bilco door down to the south side of the building, and that’s the only foundation work that’s going to be required. MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the wall construction now, two by fours? MR. HOGAN-In the existing house it’s two by four construction. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to have to add on scabs on there to bring it out to two by sixes? They’re not going to let you build with anything but two by sixes upstairs, I would assume. MR. HOGAN-Right, it’s going to be two by sixes upstairs. Then we’re going to have to make adjustments inside. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to have to gut the whole thing, then? MR. HOGAN-Pretty much the inside of the building is going to get gutted, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So we’re really looking at almost new construction here, right? MR. KUHL-And you’re adding a two sided porch, one to the one side, one to the back. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) MR. HOGAN-Yes, one to the west, one to the north. MR. KUHL-What are you going to do about the stormwater control? MR. HOGAN-There’s stormwater controls on, there’s a stormwater plan. I don’t know if you guys have a copy of it or not. MR. OBORNE-They may not. MR. HOGAN-They would not? All right. There’s a stormwater controls, basically what you’re looking at, there’s stormwater to the west, you see that (lost words), it gets rid of the flow off of that side of the house, and then to the north we have another stormwater control device where we’re going to get the stormwater from there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Now I’m looking at your vegetative plan here, and I don’t see any trees on there, and I think, you know, if you look up at the aerial photographs, you know, if you look at the pictures you included of the house, there’s like no vegetation, and I think it’s critical on Rockhurst, you know, the last project we had before us. MR. CROWELL-This is actually not on Rockhurst. It’s on Assembly Point. MR. HOGAN-Yes, this is Holly Lane. MR. UNDERWOOD-I know, but I’m just saying, in a sense, you know, you do have the space here on this lot to do some substantial reforestation, and that’s not to say, you know, you might be the first one in the neighborhood to do it, too, but, you know, to put in suburban plantings, to me is pretty illogical in this day and age, you know, and I understand how everybody wants their unobstructed view of the lake so everybody can see all the grand improvements you’ve done, but I think, too, you know, when we have an opportunity to re-do it and do it properly, you know, you can put some trees, some birch trees, some pine trees out there, it’s going to have a substantial effect, and it’s going to give you more of an Adirondack and take away that suburban look. I mean, you’re trying to make something that’s going to fit, and I think that the re-do is going to fit to a degree, but, you know, without the trees there, it still sticks out like a sore thumb, as far as I’m concerned, and I think that, you know, as far as stormwater goes and everything else, down at the lake level there, you know, a few potted plants down there isn’t going to make it as far as I’m concerned. I mean, I would rather see a substantial vegetative re-plot that really achieves the goal, and that is we don’t want what we have now. We want what’s trying to be achieved up on the lake to happen, and, you know, that’s something that you’ve got to consider, too. My only other concern is this, you know, if you’re talking a two by four building here, you know, we’ve gotten into this issue with these projects before where everything starts, and then we get inside and we say, it’s only two by fours, you know, they’re kind of crappy, the sills are gone. I don’t know what the status of the building is, whether it’s dry, wet or otherwise. MR. HOGAN-Well, the structure’s pretty solid, actually. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume it’s pretty solid from what I see in the photographs, but nonetheless, if we’re going to build things to last and build things to have value in the future, you know, it’s as good a time as any to consider what we might do. Now, you could make the argument that you couldn’t slide this back, but, you know, in essence you could bring this building all the way back to that wall in the back there and have it walk out so you didn’t have to come down the stairs into it. That might make even more sense than having to still come down the stairs to walk into the building there. MR. CROWELL-Let me speak to a couple of these things. First of all, on the plantings, we have pretty huge oak here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, that’s one. MR. CROWELL-Yes, that’s one, but its root system is substantial. I mean, if you look down that whole street, this is one of the biggest trees on the street, and to do other plantings, I would be concerned about the impact on the root system for this. Also if you look along the side, I mean, there’s a substantial number of trees going from my northern side lot, and again, you know, we’re doing a stormwater plan here that’s zero. So, if this is a view shed issue, then it’s a view shed issue. If this is a stormwater issue we’ve taken care of the stormwater issue, I think, I would submit to you, by virtue of the engineering that we’ve done. So, you know, there’s a difference, and if that’s, the other thing is what we’ve tried to do and made a conscious decision, was not to, you know, eliminate the foundation, not to make this, you know, a tear down as the former applicant had because of those types of issues, and we’re just trying to work within the 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) framework that we currently have and the structure that we currently have, and there’s no, from my perspective, if I wanted to, you know, move it back, re-design, make a bigger, you know, I mean, that’s the reason why I decided to work within the existing footprint, so I wouldn’t get into the issues that the prior applicant had. MR. HOGAN-I mean, I had a really nice house design that I did for Bill that actually incorporated what you had where you could walk almost from his garage directly to the house and not have to go down the stairs, but, I mean, basically you would have had to rip out the existing pump tank and septic tank. I’d have to destroy the foundation, fill it and re-do it. I mean, at that point it’s not a re-model. It’s a significant, you know, it’s basically building a new house at that point, and the amount we’re going to gain by that is minor, in terms of space. We basically made a decision that we’re not going to spend, you know, a million dollars building a house here. We’re going to spend $250,000 and come up with a nice thing that fits in with the existing houses on the street. MR. CROWELL-Yes, I mean, as you all know, all the lots on the street are nonconforming, and, you know, the pattern of development on the street, you know, this would fit. It’s consistent with the pattern of development on the street. If I were going to make the application to, you know, do more and knock this structure down and put up a new structure, well, you know, I think consistent with what you just suggested, I would have to make a lot of changes that would conform. One other thing, you know, in terms of this being self-created, it is self-created, in terms of the setback, but in terms of the FAR relief, I believe the Zoning Code just was changed, what, maybe two years ago. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it was last year, June of ’09. MR. CROWELL-Yes. So I purchased, this is my full time residence. I purchased it in 2001. So at the time of my purchase, and, you know, based on what was going on around, certainly I didn’t anticipate that I would, you know, if I’ve got two small dormer bedrooms upstairs, it’s not even heated, I didn’t anticipate that there would be any problem in, you know, hopefully doing what I’m suggesting doing here, you know, increasing the upstairs area and, you know, the roof expansion, and again, that’s consistent. I mean, if you look at the neighbors, you know, in terms of height, etc., it’s not going to be anything outside the character of the neighborhood. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think any of us are, you know, everybody understands that vertical expansion is a reasonable thing to pursue. I don’t really have a problem with that either, but I think that, you know, when you start looking at all the impermeable, even though you’re going to say they’re permeable pavers up there, you know, at the same time, you’re doing that on the side of the lake that’s closest to the lake, you know, and even though you’re trying to achieve a goal of no impact on the lake whatsoever, it still has an impact, and I think the impact is more than just simply runoff. It’s the issue of, what do we want the future of that lake to be up there, and I think, you know, we’re really working towards achieving something that’s going to be drastically different than what we’ve allowed in the past, and I think that’s why we did the revision to the Code, too, and I think it’s paramount that we consider those changes going forward. MR. GARRAND-Quick question. The foundation is being enlarged four feet closer to the lake? MR. CROWELL-No. The foundation is not being changed. MR. HOGAN-Except in the southwest corner, I believe, for the bilco door. It’s in the back corner by where the existing porch is now. That’s where the bilco door is going to be moved. MRS. JENKIN-This is just a question because it was mentioned. If you’re gutting the house, and you’ve said that it’s necessary to have two by sixes for the upstairs. Do you have to take out all the existing two by fours and replace them with two by sixes on the first floor? MR. HOGAN-No. MRS. JENKIN-This is just a question. I’m not understanding. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re going to have to add on a scab on each one of them to bring them out to two by sixes, five and a half inches. MRS. JENKIN-You add to it. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re going to decrease your inside space. MR. HOGAN-The inside space is going to decrease by an inch and a half, yes. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) MRS. JENKIN-Okay. That was just a question. MR. HOGAN-Yes, I mean, that’s a construction kind of thing where they go through, just to get the amount of insulation in the wall and what not. They’ve got to go through and do all of that kind of stuff, exactly. MR. CROWELL-But any of that could be done simply with a building permit. MRS. JENKIN-It was just my question. It wasn’t that I had an issue with it at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anymore questions from you guys, or should we open up the public hearing? Okay. I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do you want to come up? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. The Lake George Water Keeper has concerns about the variances requested and the size of the building size and the shoreline setback on this shoreline property. The Lake George Water Keeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply the Town’s regulations including 179-8-040 Shoreline Buffers and the balancing test criteria during your deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application, and we’d like to offer you the following comments: The application should be required to install a shoreline buffer as required by 179-8-020 and 040, as has already been mentioned. Currently there is no buffer provided along the shoreline property is located in the southern portion of Harris Bay where substantial algae growth has been observed in the Summer of 2009 and can be greatly attributed to the lack of shoreline buffer along the densely developed shoreline. The requirement for the installation of a shoreline buffer is a necessity for the stewardship of the lake and for the improvement of water quality in Lake George, and just as a note also you talk about the stormwater importance and the nutrient uptake, also this, and a lot of the properties have concrete seawalls along this, and the shoreline buffering is also very important to stabilize the shoreline. So it’s not simply just stormwater issues. It’s to stabilize the shoreline more. A shoreline setback variance is not necessary for a patio. The Lake George Water Keeper supports the use of permeable pavement for the reduction of stormwater at this site. However, the increased disturbance in width to the patio construction, removal of soils, construction of retaining walls necessary for the grading within the shoreline setbacks increases the impacts to the lakes. We feel there are alternatives for the patio construction. The Floor Area Ratio should be reduced to minimized the impacts to the community environment. Floor Area Ratio is developed to prevent the amount of living area from exceeding the land’s capacity to mitigate land use and development. When this is exceeded, there are potential impacts to the community through homes that are oversized and to the environment from excessive stormwater, wastewater and disturbance. We understand there has been an improvement to the onsite wastewater treatment. We feel that it should be certified that it is sized for a three bedroom house, two bedrooms and the den that could be converted in the future. It is our opinion that the requested variances are excessive and not necessary and could result in impacts to the community and environment. We feel that there should be alternatives considered to reduce the requested variances, and we’d like to thank you for listening to the comments and if there’s any questions, I’ll be glad to take them. MR. GARRAND-Question for you. What do you suggest they do for the patio? MR. NAVITSKY-The patio, we feel that there is areas to the side of the house. I mean, they’re having a wraparound porch on the one side, I believe it’s the north side. Could they extend that patio out, reduce kind of the walking and encroachment towards the lake there to the south? It may be away from where their view is, but they also have that large tree there. That could be patio extended out there, and some shade also provided. So we think that if there’s a wraparound porch, there’s a reason for that, and there could also be possibly extend the patio up on the side, and get a little more buffer and room towards the lake. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any sense, as far as you’re concerned, as far as the type of vegetation that goes on? I mean, everything’s pretty much low growing that they’ve proposed? To me, I think we’re trying to achieve more of a peek-a-boo look. I mean, the ones that we’ve done on Rockhurst, we’re trying to put up real trees that give you a view but it’s not a complete view of the lake at the same time, because we feel that, you know, there’s a substantial uptake of nutrients when we do have root structures across the whole site. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) MR. NAVITSKY-It’s the root structure. It’s also, you know, the canopy structure. It’s also the interception of the rain from that falling right down on the shoreline. It’s the evapotranspiration from these type of mature vegetation. Last evening, a proposal was brought in to the Planning Board on one of the dock replacements, and they came in substantial vegetation, but again, it was the perennials and low ground cover, 290 plants, something like that, but again it was asked, you need some more shrubs and you need, you know, a couple of large trees. They did have some substantial trees that were existing there, but I agree with you. We like to say it’s a four tier. You have trees, you have shrubs, which fill in between the trees, and then you have the, you know, herbaceous perennials right there on the ground, and then, you know, that also creates the organic duff, which on that forest type of floor, which brings in the microbes and all those important things that help take up the nutrients. So we feel it’s a four story effect that’s needed, and we do applaud the Town for putting that into the Zoning Code, and then that’s something that we wish other places on the lake would follow. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-I see one letter. “As owners of the property at 6 Holly Lane, Lake George, NY 12845 we have no objections concerning William Crowell’s requests for an Area Variance 25- 2010. Sincerely, Florence E. Connor Brian K. Conner” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to come back up? MR. HOGAN-I have another document here that was given to me by two of the neighbors. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, we can read that in. MR. HOGAN-That would be the neighbors to the immediate south, which is closest to Bill’s property and the neighbor’s across the street to the west. MR. URRICO-This says, “I have reviewed the plans for Mr. Crowell’s house remodel and find them to be a major improvement over the current house and property. I would approve of the variances requested to complete this project. Signed Edward J. Baertschi, 19 Holly Lane, and 18 Holly Lane. I can’t read the other name. MR. HOGAN-That’s the lady to the south. I can’t remember her name. She’s very nice. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. HOGAN-Well, I can appreciate Chris’ comments. I mean, he’s got a job to do, and he’s quite tenacious at it. I will say, from my perspective, that I did stop in to Chris’ office and asked him about native plants and got a reading on some of the things. I also showed him the plans, at that point, for this piece of property, and asked him for his input. He indicated he’d get back to me in a couple of days. He never did. He decided to wait until tonight to do that. Be that as it may. In terms of, you know, the work we did, we’ve put a considerable amount of effort into trying to mitigate the effects on the lake and this piece of property. I’m a neighbor to this, you know, I have concerns about it. Any improvement to the houses on my street or to the quality of the water is something I’m definitely interested in. In terms of my level of experience, you know, for five years I was a member of the (lost work) Lake Assessment Program. I was responsible for testing waters in the lake. I was also President and Vice President of the Glen Lake Protective Association. This is also my fourth project in a Waterfront Residential zone. I’m not without any experience in this area, and I think that Bill’s project is actually very good. I mean, we’ve put a lot of time into this. We’ve tried to do some things. In terms of adding to it, if you really need to do something with plants, I’ve looked at a lot of the plants that we chose, you know, I will say that they’re standard plants. They are larger. I mean, if you look at the planting diagram, you’ll find that a lot of them are between five and six feet tall. We’re not talking about just planting a bunch of flowers here, and we’d be willing to incorporate some more, if that would make the Board happy. One of the things I don’t know about would be, and that’s up to Bill. In terms of doing a buffer where you can’t see the house, that’s, you know, that’s inconsistent with the neighborhood, and it’s not something that, you know, you have to trade off the views that are offered to the person that owns the property along the lake, at considerable expense, you know, to guys driving by on a boat. If you guys ever want to look at my house, it’s about three doors down. We’ve done a lot of the same kinds of things. I have the same kind of patio and everything else, and it’s worked very effectively for us. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions? MR. URRICO-What about the other suggestion he made about the deck, moving some of that to the side rather than to the? MR. HOGAN-One of the things about moving it further to the side, there’s that huge oak tree. If we get too much, if we start to move it around to the side, we start to get more into the root structure of that tree, and do anything with the stormwater retention in there, it has to be in front of the building because water flows downhill, and the other thing is does is obviously, you know, your views from that piece of property are all to the northeast. So if you start moving the, if you start moving the patio around to the south side of the house, A, it gets very close to the neighbors on the south side, which only, they’re on a 50 foot lot. So it’s very close to those guys. Nobody wants to sit next to your neighbors, and that’s one of the things that we wanted to avoid here as well. MR. KUHL-Yes, and the other side would put you where the dining room. MR. HOGAN-Yes, exactly. Exactly. MR. KUHL-Because you couldn’t put the dining room next to the fireplace because you want the fireplace in the living room. MR. HOGAN-Well, the fireplace is existing and everything. The only thing we’re doing with that is just, you know, adjusting it for the building height. MR. CROWELL-And the porches that Brian has put on the side are more decorative. I mean, we’re not intending to use those. He suggested that to make it look nicer, and as he said, to give it more of an Adirondack feel. MR. HOGAN-It’s such a small house. I mean, we’re extending it vertically, and the house is only 20 some feet wide. So if you go vertically, it starts to look like a miniature skyscraper. So what you want to do is, there’s a six foot wide walking porch on the side of the building. MR. KUHL-I read somewhere where a porch on the side reduces the temperature by eight degrees on the inside of the house. MR. HOGAN-Yes, it does, because it usually catches all the sun. It doesn’t do that much for Bill because it’s on the north side of the house, but, yes, it does help. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys at this time? All right. Then I guess I’ll poll the Board members to see what everybody thinks. I’ll start with you, Roy. MR. URRICO-I know we’re supposed to take every case individually on its own merits, but there is a similarity between the previous application and this one, and that is the distance from the lake, whereas a different lake, but here we were fighting over an additional 10 feet, and now we’re looking at much more relief for this one, and I guess I’m stuck on that one point. I think I need to see some more movement there in the shoreline setback. MR. HOGAN-Well that shoreline setback is actually, I believe the patio doesn’t really enter in to a shoreline setback calculation. It’s actually the house itself. Is that? MR. OBORNE-That’s correct. MR. HOGAN-So we can’t move the house back any further. We’re 34 feet back from the lake now. We really can’t move it back even an inch. MR. URRICO-Well, I’m going to have to listen to what some of the other folks say, because right now I’m still stuck on that. MR. OBORNE-If I could clarify, and Chris did bring that to my attention when he was speaking. On my relief required, I left on there the second one says, further, the applicant requests 28 feet of linear feet of shoreline setback relief from the 20 foot shoreline setback requirement for the proposed patio. That’s actually not required. In the bottom, for some reason I didn’t remove that. When you look at whether the request for Area Variance is substantial, that’s not in there. MR. URRICO-All right. So let’s go over this, then. We’re looking for FAR relief. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) MR. OBORNE-You’re looking for FAR relief. You’re looking for relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure for the point of the structure that is being raised, and that’s the roof. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Which is, what did I write down there, 15 foot into the 30, the 50 foot. MR. HOGAN-Yes, it’s 16 feet into the 50 feet, and that’s because we’re changing the roof. MR. URRICO-Well, let me think about it. MR. OBORNE-And I apologize for that. MR. URRICO-Okay. Let me think about it. MRS. HUNT-So the request for 28 feet of relief is not in there? MR. OBORNE-Not for the patio. No. If the applicant was building a deck, it would be a different story because that’s considered a structure. You see those all the time. MR. URRICO-All right. Then that changes my outlook on this. I think the applicant has done a good job of putting this application together. I think they’ve mitigated the stormwater, which is always a concern. I would think they would take into account some of Jim’s suggestions about the buffer, and make that part of the project, and with those conditions, I would accept it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I like the idea of conditions for stormwater control. This lot is pretty empty when you look at it, and there isn’t a lot there right now for stormwater control, and I think Chris’ suggestions should be well taken to heart before we make any decision on this. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think, myself, that it is a positive improvement, that the plan is a good one that you’re doing it on the existing footprint. I think that replacing the deck with the permeable patio is a positive benefit for everything. I think, I really like the idea of the wraparound porch. It’s certainly a benefit to the applicant, and it just, it makes the house look just more aesthetically pleasing having that there. I think that’s a good idea. I agree you can’t move it back farther from the lake, but I also feel strongly that I don’t like seeing a lot of lawn near a lake. It makes me cringe, because I don’t think that it’s aesthetically pleasing, and it’s not a natural environment. So I would suggest and agree with the rest of the Board members that natural plantings, and I’m not talking about trees, I’m talking about low growing shrubs, perennials, could be all the way from the patio all the way down to the, there’s very little care when you have that, and then you don’t have the use of fertilizers and pesticides and everything to try to make the lawn. When I drive around some of the lakefront properties, they’re so green and there’s not a weed in sight, and it just, I just don’t agree with it at all. I was out on the lake the other days, and some of the homes that do have a slope down at the lake that have the natural plantings, they look just lovely, and they’re really, it adds an awful lot to the lakefront to have that. So, with the changes that you’re making, with your stormwater control, it’s an improvement to the house, I would be agreeable to the variances, with the condition. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, I think that benefits could not be achieved by other methods feasible to the applicant because of the constraints of the lot, and they’re not moving the house, and as I understand it now, they’re really just asking for two variances, increase in the FAR by 2.4%, and approval of a nonconforming structure. Is that correct? MR. OBORNE-Expansion of a nonconforming structure. MRS. HUNT-So I would have no problems with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-It’s all been said by the other Board members. It’s an improvement. The stormwater control works. I have no problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I think that the owners want it to look like what the owners want it to look like. With that in mind, and saying that you would incorporate more plants into your plan here, I think that it’s a well thought out project. I think you’ve done your due diligence. You’ve got all positive comments from your neighbors, and I would be in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. To summarize, I don’t think it’s out of the realm of reality here what you’re proposing here. I think it’s going to look very nice. You’ve put some thought into the process, and I think it will better reflect, you know, what we want to achieve up there on the lake. At the same time, I think that even though you can make the argument that your neighbors don’t have trees in front of their house. They have an unobstructed view of the lake, I think it’s important for us to try and achieve something that’s going to bring the lake into some semblance of perpetuation going forward. We know the lake is at risk. We know that, just simple ornamental plantings aren’t always necessarily the best way to go with that, and I think the Water Keeper made some commentary about four tier growth, that is that you include trees. So what I would like to see here, and what I would propose to you, and we can have a little side discussion here before we put this on the record. I would like to see at least six trees planted out there, all right, two birch trees, two oak trees, and two pine trees. All right. Where you put them, I don’t want them all over in one corner. I don’t want them, I want them staggered around out there. It’s something that, you can consider it this way. In the summertime, you don’t want to have direct sunlight. You don’t want to have direct runoff. It’s been suggested by Board members that that lawn that goes down to the lake there isn’t something that’s a given, all right. It doesn’t really belong on Lake George, in my book either, and I think if you could consider doing a more naturalized planting, which would be substantial, you would have to put a lot of perennials in and things like that, to eliminate that, and at the same time I think, when the Planning Board reviews this in finality, the plan, the buffer down at the water level, right on the shoreline there, would be adequate to have a couple of trees down there. Lake George shoreline, if you look at the natural, undisturbed shoreline, trees go right down to the water, you know, there’s not an elimination for hundreds of feet along the lake there, in linear length, that has no trees whatsoever. So, that’s going to be my proposal to you. I want to see two of the trees down by the water. I want to see two of the trees up, incorporated into that buffer that you have up by the patio, and the other two trees, you can stagger those around the yard there. You’re going to start a new trend up there in your neighborhood, and as everybody else does their house over, everybody’s going to see the benefits of what they’re doing here. It’s not going to be a detriment. It’s not any hurtful thing to you as far as your view or anything like that, either, because we’re not all going to be here that much longer anyway, but the lake will hopefully remain as is. So I guess I’ll do this one for you guys. MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2010 WILLIAM CROWELL, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 20 Holly Lane, Assembly Point. The applicant is proposing the expansion of an existing 1.5 story year round home to include expansion to the existing kitchen, office, den, second story, and the addition of a wraparound porch on the north and west side of the home. Further, the applicant is proposing to replace the existing wooded deck with a permeable patio and the construction of two retaining walls adjacent to the shoreline. Relief is requested from the minimum Floor Area Ratio and shoreline setback requirements for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The applicant specifically is seeking 353 square feet of additional Floor Area Ratio relief from the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio of 3,258 square feet for this parcel as per Section 179-3-040, and the total proposed Floor Area Ratio is to be 3,611 square feet. We are asking for relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area for that portion of the house to be expanded within the 50 foot shoreline setback relief per Section 179-13-010 A. The expansion of the structure begins 15 feet into the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement, and we recognize that. Primarily this structure’s going to be extended with that second story up there, and I think that’s going to be built at 25 feet. That was the height that was agreed upon. We recognize that the structure is a two by four structure. It’s going to be built with two by six construction to Code, to bring it up to year round usage, and as far as whether the request is substantial, although it is over the top as far as the Floor Area Ratio relief goes, we don’t feel that this structure is out of synch with what’s been done in the neighborhood, or will probably be done in the future up there in the neighborhood, and it will effectively make the neighborhood a better place. The only stipulations that we will put in here is we would like to see substantial vegetative plantings completed on the foreshore area, including six trees, and that’ll be two oak trees, two birch trees, and two pine trees. We would like to see those remain and not be trimmed or cut because we’re trying to achieve 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) something. Along with those trees, we would like to see the primary elimination of most of that lawn area leading down and a regular berm with native plantings done there to better reflect what the shoreline should be on Lake George, because this is going to have a positive effect for the neighborhood. In agreeing to do this, we would be more than happy to grant you the relief as requested. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-So I guess we’re not going to worry about the linear footage? MR. OBORNE-Yes, you could say that last line under relief requested on the top, or second from the top. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we’re not going to request any shoreline setback relief because that was to the patio and that was done in error? MR. OBORNE-Yes, in the very last line under relief required, maybe something along the lines. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Now can we further direct that these comments, make sure that the Planning Board incorporates them into their review? MR. OBORNE-They’ll get them tomorrow. You’re on tomorrow, I believe. MR. CROWELL-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I will not be there. Stu Baker will be there. He’s, don’t worry about it, he can cover it for me, but they, I’ll make sure that it’s in the packet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Do you guys want any of these plans back? MR. OBORNE-You may want them for your submittal. MR. HOGAN-Sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-That way you don’t have to reproduce them again. AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II INWALD ENTERPRISES (ROBIN INWALD) AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): INWALD ENTERPRISES (ROBIN INWALD) ZONING: WR LOCATION: 38 GUNN LANE, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOATHOUSE WITH A 697 SQUARE FOOT DECK ADDITION BETWEEN TWO EXISTING DOCKS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: AV 68-2008, S.P. 38-2008, SP 39-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 9, 2010 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION: 179-5-060A7 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2010, Inwald Enterprises (Robin Inwald), Meeting Date: June 23, 2010 “Project Location: 38 Gunn Lane, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a boathouse with a 697 square foot sundeck addition between two existing docks. Relief requested for minimum side setback requirements. Relief Required: The applicant is requesting the following relief: 20 feet of north side setback relief for the portion of the sundeck totally within 20 foot setback requirement per §179-5-060(7) 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) 6 feet of additional relief above and beyond the 20 feet of relief sought for that portion of the sundeck that extends beyond or negatively into the side setback perpendicular to the shoreline per §179-5-060(7). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be created as the dock and sundeck are consistent with surrounding shoreline docks and boathouses/sundecks. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Concerning setback relief, the attitude of the shoreline line appears to preclude the applicant from any method feasible other than the request for an area variance. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 20 feet or 100% relief from the 20 foot north side line setback requirement per §179-5-060(7) may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The applicant requests 6 feet of additional relief above and beyond the 20 feet of relief sought for that portion of the sundeck that extends beyond or negatively into the side setback perpendicular to the shoreline per §179-5-060(7). The proposed sundeck not only extends past the setback line but also beyond the extension of the property line. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The alleged difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): S.P. 39-2010 Sundeck Pending AV 68-08: side setback relief 10/22/08 SP 38-08: 863 sq. ft. res. Add.; 400 sq. ft. screened porch 8/18/09 Staff comments: The applicant has obtained a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning minimum dock setback requirements as per §179-5-060. Please see attached. SEQR Status: Type II – No further review required.” MR. URRICO-The recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning minimum dock setback requirements was passed seven zero with the Planning Board not identifying any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Stefanie. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter for the record, for Inwald Enterprises. We’re seeking relief from both the 20 foot setback on the northern side, as well as the 20 foot perpendicular line from the setback on the southern line. The applicant is seeking to construct a 693 square foot sundeck, right on top of the existing docks that are presently there. In addition, they’re also looking to have a 58 foot proposed ramp, due to their current disabilities. Unfortunately, due to the unique layout of this lot, the frontage is 73 feet, the applicant does not have a location which would be deemed compliant to construct a dock on this property. The 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) dock’s pre-existing, obviously. Like I had mentioned, the addition is being sought due to the disabilities that the Inwalds have. Specifically, one has a fused back and the other one has a degenerative disk, which osteoporosis prevents any surgery from being done. As a result, they’re in constant pain, and they’re looking for a way in which they can enjoy the lake. This ramp with the sundeck would allow them to enjoy the lake to the best of their ability. When reviewing the analysis of the balancing test, we feel that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment that can be deemed to exist to the community with this variance, the first being no undesirable change. I’ve provided Keith with multiple pictures of the Cleverdale area, in which this sundeck would be constructed, and there’s many, many sundecks in the immediate vicinity, specifically to the north and to the south. We are not planning on constructing something similar to north, which I refer to as a cabana, but something similar to that which is to the south. No other method feasible, as I had explained, we’re in a unique situation due to the limited shoreline, as well as the turns and radiuses that it has. We don’t believe that this should be deemed substantial when looking at the totality of the circumstances, although we’re seeking 20 feet of relief from the setback. When looking at the unique layout of the site, the surrounding sundecks that exist, as well as the current vegetation which will surround the ramp that we’re proposing, we feel that the substantiality is decreased. No adverse effects on the community, again, surrounded by sundecks, but we are willing to incorporate any vegetation that the Planning Board may deem is necessary for the ramp. I know that was recommended by the County, and we’re willing to do so, but if you’ve been to the site, or you can actually see in the pictures, there’s a tree line on the north side, and there is some vegetation along the south. MR. UNDERWOOD-Stefanie, this is the same site that the Inwalds, they were in before us previously with the same site. MS. BITTER-Right. If you’ve been to the site, they’re under construction right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think some of us remember the issues with the, Mrs. Inwald I think is the woman with the problem. MS. BITTER-Right, exactly. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does the Park Commission have any say on the ramp? Do you guys have to get permission to do that? MS. BITTER-They are planning on seeking permits right after this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, that would be pending whatever they decide, too. MS. BITTER-Exactly. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I know, in the past, ramps and, you know, those land bridges and all those have been an issue in the past, and, you know, they haven’t been allowed for any reason whatsoever. So, you know, I think for us, it would probably be proper for us to grant relief, if we’re going to do it, for the deck. MS. BITTER-Right, and I think that’s all that’s before you this evening. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that’s all we really need to worry about. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-And as far as the ramp, if you get the ramp, that’s fine, but if you don’t, then I guess you just live with the fact that you don’t get the ramp. MS. BITTER-Right. Elevator, maybe. MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s something that probably could be done practicably, but I mean, I think the issue would be, with the ramps, just talking about it, even though we’re not going to discuss it, everybody could probably come in and say there’s somebody in their family who can’t get up on the deck anymore, and I don’t think that the lake probably would want to see a whole bunch of those ramps built on every single property or it would look like the Evil Keneval jump off or something. I mean, you’re going to have to have the ramp on a low enough slope, handicapped accessible numbers on that. I’m sure they’ve been done that way. MS. BITTER-Right, and that’s what they’ve designed. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just make the comment, we’ve dealt with this issue before with having to do that right angle measurement from the shoreline where they crisscross like gun sites. I think the last one we did was down in. MR. OBORNE-It was Kraft, wasn’t it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it was Kraft on Harris Bay Yacht Club. Down in that area they have the same issue of trying to put any docks in for the same thing, and I think for practicable reasons, I think most people, the neighbors all realize that, you know, even though it crosses over the line, it doesn’t really cross over the line in reality. It’s just simple a numerical thing with surveying. MR. OBORNE-I will say the idea of the Code, and you probably know this, is for navigation, more than anything. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-My comment, I guess, when I was out there, the property beside it, to the right side, their dock must be right on the property line. MS. BITTER-The one with the cabana that I referred to? I assume so, yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that is an illegal dock. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-That is illegal, and that structure on top of the dock is much higher than 16 feet from the mean high water mark. MRS. JENKIN-Okay, but that has nothing to do with the property you’re talking about. MS. BITTER-Right. MRS. JENKIN-But it was just, I noticed that, and to put a sundeck on this, well, that’s too bad for the people because they’re on an illegal dock anyway, but I can’t understand this ramp. Is it possible to put a sitting area in front of the dock, so that, on level, so that they can get down there and then, you said they’re doing it to enjoy the lake, but if there’s a sitting area down at the dock, then what’s against just using something on ground level? MS. BITTER-Well, it’s not only for views, but it also is for their boat. They have a boat there now, but obviously to cover the boat is something that’s very difficult for her to do. If it’s underneath the sundeck, it’s obviously protected from the water and they wouldn’t have to actually bring the cover. MRS. JENKIN-They could have a boathouse with a regular roof. MS. BITTER-That’s true. MRS. JENKIN-And then put a sitting area either to the side of it or on the other. MS. BITTER-I think ideally the ramp is definitely tied in here, because I’m not sure if you were able to walk down to the dock or to the area when you did your site visit, but I can tell you that I navigated it in heels, and it wasn’t easy. MRS. JENKIN-Well, there’s a lot of heavy grass there now. MS. BITTER-So I can imagine that if I had any back problems with walking it would be difficult in addition. MRS. JENKIN-They could make a path down there. MS. BITTER-It’s feasible, but yet I think, like I said, the ramp is definitely a factor in the sundeck, that they’re hoping to achieve. MRS. JENKIN-Well, I’m surprised that the ramp doesn’t come into the variance. MR. OBORNE-Well, there’s nothing that the ramp has to do with sideline setbacks. It is compliant in that regard. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And it is a Site Plan issue also. MR. UNDERWOOD-What about the fact that we don’t allow ramps, though, I mean, nonetheless, it would seem like you’d need a variance for that, regardless. MR. OBORNE-I think that the applicant’s going to have to do their due diligence on that, to be honest with you. MR. GARRAND-What’s the stipulation from the County Planning Board? MS. BITTER-The County Planning Board, it was attached, actually the Planning Board’s recommendation was relative to vegetation. Warren County Planning Board Recommends No County Impact with the conditions that the applicant put in a stormwater infiltration system, which is incorporated on the sundeck, and do some kind of screening, landscaping around the ramp. So, we figured that the Planning Board would discuss that further. MR. CLEMENTS-On the north side of that ramp, though, it’s all pretty high shrubs and trees along there anyway, isn’t it? MS. BITTER-Right. MRS. JENKIN-The ramp is going to be nine or ten feet high. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just offhand, I know we’re not going to be discussing it, but what are your guys feelings on this ramp situation? Because, you know, to me you’re saying, as far as feasible alternatives, you could put a lift in down there. You’ve got those boat lifts that lift boats out of the water, you know, I’m sure they could be devising one that could do the same thing for a handicap lift, but I’m just thinking, you know, in a sense of, I don’t have a problem with boathouses, but ramps like this scare me to death, because I’m just thinking, anybody, Tom, Dick or Harry, on the lake with a boathouse could come in and say, hey, I can’t get around, and. MS. BITTER-There’s one like right next door. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MS. BITTER-And, I mean, this one you can barely see the ramp, though, because of the vegetation kind of covers it. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s not Hoffman’s? MS. BITTER-No, it’s the next one up. MRS. JENKIN-They have a ramp? An 80 foot ramp? MR. KUHL-You know, there are outside elevators that are made. MRS. JENKIN-Well, it goes up to a higher level. MS. BITTER-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-You see a lot of those that are going, because the level of the land is higher than, yes, I can understand that. You see those all around, but not an 80 foot ramp. MR. URRICO-Jim, since it was asked about the Warren County Planning Board’s Staff Notes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Hold on. I’ll have you read them. MR. KUHL-I drive a school bus, and there’s one particular person that’s in a wheelchair, and it’s a high ranch, and they put an outside lift made for outside, electric elevator lift. MR. UNDERWOOD-See, if you’re looking at this picture. MR. KUHL-You don’t see it, it goes away. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. KUHL-This stands up. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) MR. UNDERWOOD-This picture, which we probably ought to put it on the record, too, you know, that’s a land bridge. That’s entirely different than a ramp. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, right, exactly, you’re right, it’s a land bridge. MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re two different animals that you’re talking about here, but I think, you know, if the Park Commission’s going to review this, boy, I’m going to say, they’re going to flip out, you know. I mean, maybe it’s a one-time only deal. Maybe you’re the only one that’s proposing it, but if you open up that Pandora’s Box, and everybody starts proposing these, it would be, you know, a better question what you’re doing. MRS. JENKIN-But this is a problem, because the variance only speaks to the side setback for the. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and I think we’re maybe, you know. MS. BITTER-Right, it’s only for the sundeck. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Sure. The sundeck is fine, but I think, you know, is the sundeck predicated on the ramp, or is the ramp predicated on the sundeck? I mean, which way is it going? MS. BITTER-I think if it comes to the point that the Park Commission won’t approve it, then obviously an alternative like what you were speaking of has to be explored. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MS. BITTER-But it still brings us to the point that the sundeck needs a variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and I think, you know, like when we look at sundecks, you know, regardless of the situation, we’d hardly ever say no. I mean, that’s not an unreasonable request to begin with, but I think we can temper that with some commentary, too, because, you know, you may have to come back and get relief for something that’s a structure that we currently do not allow. Do you guys have any more questions? MR. URRICO-Well, because Mr. Garrand brought it up, “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form, and the same project proposing a boathouse with a 697 square foot sundeck addition between two existing docks, and relief requested for minimum side setback requirements. Their staff notes say the applicant also requires a setback for area lot coverage, and the deck has an approximate 60 ft. long ramp from the ground to the sundeck. Staff has concerns regarding building mass along the shoreline and the reduced permeable surfaces to treat stormwater before filtration into the lake. So I just thought that’s worth mentioning. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’m going to open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any correspondence? MR. URRICO-Yes, there is one, at least one, yes. “We own 112-124 Shore acres; this proposed 697 sq. ft. sundeck addition between two existing docks is the only view we have of the lake from our beach. We have enjoyed this view for years and do not want our view taken away, therefore we do not agree with this proposal. Sincerely, Estate of Amelia Lupe Owen” MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just make the comment before you come back. All the years that we’ve allowed the proliferation of boat docks and then conversion to sundecks up on top with boats shelter underneath, we’ve gotten to the point with the smaller lots up on the lake there where when you drive along there, and I don’t think any one of us that’s ever gone up there and seen it has said to yourself, you know, it’s an industrial wharf. You can’t really even see the lake from your home anymore, in many respects, you know, when we start building these things, and it’s not to say, hey, you know, you guys, because you’re one of the latter ones, you’re the culprit. Everybody’s culpable as far as that goes, but at the same time, I think what we really should do on this one is this. All right. I think you’ve got to go to the Park Commission. You’ve got to do some actual full time soul searching as to what you’re going to do here, because if the Park Commission’s going to adopt this proposed ramp, and I don’t know if they are or if they’re not going to, you know, I mean, that’s up in the air. You’ve got a deck proposed out here. You’ve got a neighbor directly affected by it. A deck is an allowable structure on the waterfront, as 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) proposed like this. So, I mean, I don’t see how we could say no to these people, going forward, as far as, if we haven’t said no to everybody else that lives up there in the same immediate neighborhood, but nonetheless, you reach a tipping point at some point, and you’ve got to say to yourself, do the Inwalds really need to do this, I mean is it really that critical, because everybody understands the situation when you’re in a situation, you know, when you’re unable to perform physically any longer, but at the same time, you know, think about what your effect is going to be. I mean, if this is something that’s really necessary, that’s one thing, but if it’s something you can live without, you can still roll out onto the dock and look at the lake as it exists there, I think that’s a feasible alternative to consider not doing what you’re proposing, and I’ll listen to your argument, too. MS. BITTER-I just wanted to respond to that neighbor’s comment. That neighbor that’s making that submission has about 280 feet of shoreline. Their house actually faces, this is their house, to the south, which is away from what we were proposing the sundeck to be constructed on, and this is their shoreline. So for them to be concerned about impeding their view, obviously, we have a few obstructions on our own. MR. UNDERWOOD-So this really isn’t way off in right field? MS. BITTER-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s not like center field in their view shed or anything. MS. BITTER-And obviously they’re viewing this as well. So I understand, you know, obviously the neighbor has their comments, but I don’t think that they’re as strong as they really make them out to be, and I do understand your concern relative to if they can just roll out onto the dock, but, like I said, I believe it’s very imperative at this point, due to their conditions, that a ramp must be explored and a sundeck as well, being the incorporated item that we’re seeking. MR. URRICO-Could they make it to the sundeck without a ramp? MS. BITTER-Could they make it to a, like with stairs? MR. URRICO-No, right now. MR. GARRAND-Are these people invalids? Do they regularly get around with wheelchairs? MS. BITTER-She said she was in a wheelchair last summer. She can’t sit. She has special cushions where she has to sit because she’s in constant pain. MR. URRICO-Is it motorized? MS. BITTER-I’m not sure of those details. MR. GARRAND-Then how is she going to get up? I’m sorry, Keith. MR. OBORNE-I would suggest obviously, I just want to focus the Board on your relief is for the sundeck only. MR. URRICO-Well, that’s why I’m trying to get to the point. If we gave her the relief for the sundeck. MR. OBORNE-Any concerns you have, put it in the body of your resolution. The Planning Board will be looking at that tomorrow night. MR. URRICO-So if we’re just talking about the sundeck, and that’s out of our hands, right? We’re not going to be dealing with the ramp anyway. MRS. JENKIN-That’s right. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Why don’t we do this, then. I think we’re all set as far as approving the sundeck part. MS. BITTER-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think we should put some commentary in there about the ramp, all right, and the future of the ramp. MRS. JENKIN-Could we table it? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) MR. UNDERWOOD-No, we’re not going to table it, but in other words, I’ll let somebody do this, but I think the commentary should reflect the fact that we’re very concerned about the proposed ramp. We understand that it might be necessary for someone now, but we’re wondering what the Park Commission’s take on that will be, because in the long term, I think we want to do something that we’re not going to open up the gate, so we have a whole bunch of these, because I don’t think, once you do the first one, don’t think you’re going to be able to tell anybody else, no, you can’t have a ramp, and we all recognize that land bridges are not allowed, even though there’s some that exist. There’s one in the neighborhood there, we recognize that, too, but at the same time, we would be approving this for a traditional sundeck, and I don’t know how you were going to approach to get up on the sundeck if you didn’t have the ramp. You’d have to put a staircase in, I guess, and some kind of a lift, as the alternative. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-So whoever’s going to do this, I want that at the end, the caveat we’re approving the requested relief for the sundeck, but we recognize that the sundeck, if the ramp does not happen, will have to have some relief for, are we going to provide relief for a traditional stair coming down? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think that’s under your auspices, to be honest with you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And the reason that I bring up to put it in the resolution, because I hear your concerns, I’m not going to be able to turn, Maria’s not going to be able to turn those minutes around quick enough because tomorrow night is their meeting. So I’d like to have that language in the resolution, to make sure the Planning Board hears what you’re thinking. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll do it and I’ll put it in there. All right. I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES (ROBIN INWALD), Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 38 Gunn Lane, Cleverdale. The applicant is proposing a boathouse with a 697 square foot sundeck addition between two existing docks. Relief is requested from the minimum side setback requirements. Under the relief required, there’s 20 feet of north side setback relief for the portion of the sundeck totally within the 20 foot setback requirement, and 6 feet of additional relief above and beyond the 20 feet of relief sought for that portion of the sundeck that extends beyond or negatively into the side setback perpendicular to the shoreline, per Section 179-5- 060(7). In making a determination, the Board recognizes that the relief is necessary because of having to measure at right angles from the shoreline as it exists up there, and it’s an oddball shaped shoreline, and I think we all understand that that’s why. The attitude of the shoreline appears to preclude any feasible request for any kind of dockage on that property there, and we recognize that the docks currently existing are the ones that will be covered with a sundeck up above. That’s 100% relief from the 20 foot north side line setback, which is severe, but we recognize why it’s severe, and the application for six feet of additional relief beyond that is, again, because of that projection of that imaginary line from the shoreline as we do that. We don’t really consider that there will be any impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and there’s plenty of other decks that have been built up there along that shoreline that we would never have allowed. They’re there. In any case, we do have concerns about the proposed ramp that will access this deck for the applicant’s parents who are impaired physically. We have severe issues with us because we’re not providing the permission for this ramp, but the Park Commission needs to make sure that they’re very careful with any permitting for such a structure going forward. We recognize that the Town does not permit land bridges under new construction, even though there are a few that pre-exist along the lakeshore there, and so as a feasible alternative, we would consider that probably the next best thing to do there would be some kind of an automated lift that could lift a wheelchair from the ground up to the level of the deck, and that would be a feasible alternative as opposed to this long 60 foot proposed ramp. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2010) NOES: Mrs. Jenkin MR. UNDERWOOD-And the only thing is, I want to make sure these minutes are typed up with that language for the Planning Board tomorrow night. MR. OBORNE-Well, the resolution. She’s not going to be able to get around to the minutes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I mean, at least that information that we included about our opinions about what needs to be done. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-And for you, they’re going to have to do whatever is practicable. Whatever you get you get. MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We do have some minutes to go over here, guys. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 19, 2010 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 19, 2010, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE May 26, 2010 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2010, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re done for the night. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 31